Global warming “paused”? Its the oceans stupid (reprint)

Andrew Glikson of the ANU has a great piece on The Conversations today dealing with the “global warming paused” myth that is endlessly recycled by climate change deniers. Glikson makes a great point: by solely focusing on land temperature data,  faux-sceptics wave away the fact the planet’s oceans are warming and provide some of the strongest evidence for climate change. Some 90% of the heat is trapped in the world’s oceans: figure 3 below provides a stunning illustration of this fact. 

Fact check: has global warming paused? by Andrew Glikson

“The UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last ‘30 to 40 years at least’ to break the long-term global warming trend.” – The Australian, Feb 22 2013

Since the onset of the industrial age (from 1750 AD) Earth’s atmosphere, surface and ocean temperatures have warmed. This is mainly due to the rise in greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, halocarbons, stratospheric water vapour from CH4) by a total of +3.06 Watt/m2. Other drivers include black carbon (+0.1 Watt/m2) and solar irradiance – the latter during the first half of the 20th century (+0.12 Watt/m2).

Warming was in part mitigated by emitted sulphur aerosols (direct effects -0.5 Watt/m2; cloud albedo effects -0.7 Watt/m2) and by land clearing (-0.2 Watt/m2).

Cyclic, regional and transient climate effects are related to the ENSO cycle, water vapour (whose concentration depends on air temperature) and volcanic events. The fastest warming occurs in the polar regions: this is where there is the biggest albedo (or reflectiveness) contrast between ice and water, and where little or no water vapour exists in the atmosphere.

The consequent warming trend, as measured by NASA, NOAA and Hadley-Met and analysed by Berkeley (see Figure 1), indicates a rise in average land temperature by about +1.5°C over the past 250 years, and about +0.9°C in the past 50 years. A sharp rise in temperatures from about 1975-1976 was related to both an accelerated rise in CO2 and a decrease in emission of SO2 from coal and oil due to clean air policies (see Figure 2). Cleaner air decreases the reflectiveness of the atmosphere, thus driving further warming.

Figure 1: Mean continent-ocean global warming since 1750 http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

Following a sharp El Niño peak in 1998, since about 2000 a slowing down of the mean rate of global warming was related to a sharp increase in SO2 emission from coal mainly in China (see Figure 2), strong La Niña events and a low in the 11 years sun-spot cycle.

Figure 2: Anthropogenic sulphur dioxide emissions 1850-2005. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/1101/2011/acp-11-1101-2011.pdf

As some 90% of the global heat rise is trapped in the oceans (since 1950, more than 20×1022 joules), the ocean heat level reflects global warming more accurately than land and atmosphere warming. The heat content of the ocean has risen since about 2000 by about 4×1022 joules.

Figure 3: Build-up in Earth’s total heat content. http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf

The rise in land and atmosphere temperatures since about 1996 reflects a combination of greenhouse radiative forcing from 360 to 395ppm CO2 at rates of up to 2.54ppm/year (unprecedented since 55 million years ago), the ENSO cycle and 11-years sunspot cycle. Peak temperatures at around 2006 exceed any measured in the instrumental record.

Figure 4: NASA Land-ocean temperatures http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

To summarise, claims that warming has paused over the last 16 years (1997-2012) take no account of ocean heating.

At the root of the issue is the non-acceptance by some of the reality of the greenhouse effect, known since the 19th century and consistent with the basic laws of greenhouse gas radiative forcing and black body radiation.

Andrew Glikson does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.The Conversation

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Tagged ,

74 thoughts on “Global warming “paused”? Its the oceans stupid (reprint)

  1. Eric Worrall says:

    Sadly the SKS graph you present about ocean heat content is falsified by NOAA’s website.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/

    Either the NOAA 0-700m measurement is wrong, or the SKS 0-700m measurement is wrong. Take your pick.

    In any case, lets face it, you guys wouldn’t be down to reading tealeaves and talking up signs and portents if the surface temperature was still rising. And a notice an absence of a prediction of when surface temperature rise will resume – the only prediction I know of for the near term is the MET prediction that global warming will stay flat for the next 4 years.

    • john byatt says:

      TROLL

      Eric Worrall says:
      February 25, 2013 at 9:18 pm
      Remember how you guys keep suggesting that the pause in surface temperatures is irrelevant, because the ocean is sucking up all the heat?

      Turns out you’re wrong.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/fact-check-for-andrew-glickson-ocean-heat-has-paused-too/

      Note the link to the graph on the NOAA site, which shows no ocean heating since 2003.

      Reply
      john byatt says:
      February 25, 2013 at 9:22 pm
      You are an idiot the graph used by Watts only goes to 700m

      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/noaa_upper_ocean_heat_content.png?w=640&h=518

      The sea level continues to rise by 3.1mm per year, it is not all due to melt, and please not your effin Grace nonsense again

      Reply
      john byatt says:
      February 25, 2013 at 9:36 pm
      ” Note the link to the graph on the NOAA site”

      yes I noted this one as well 0 to 700m then down to 2000m

      http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

      john byatt says:
      February 25, 2013 at 9:48 pm
      Then we have Key indicators from NASA,

      http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/

      SLR has gone above the trend line

    • Poor, Eric. Still using Watts. Loser.

    • Nick says:

      Cut and pasted bullshit,Err-ic, dealt with the last times you posted it. Please clean out your desk before leaving/better trolls please.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Your glib BS cannot account for the fact the NOAA heat anomaly graph for the upper 700m of ocean

      http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov

      Looks nothing like the 700m component of the heat anomaly graph presented by SKS, referenced by Mike’s post.

      I know that a general principle of alarmism is it doesn’t matter if the science is dodgy, so long as it supports the narrative, but can’t your heroes at least talk to each other, to make sure your graphs match?

      • Nick says:

        You’re quibbling over a scaling choice and smoothing on a graphic,that’s all. Your preferred graphic does not show OHC rise has stopped. Tell me Eric,on a related issue,why is SL rising as well? What could that indicate?

      • john byatt says:

        eric some of the ocean heat travels down below 700M we cannot actually track that flow but we can see the outcome down to 2000M , as Trenberth stated “the heat will come back to haunt us” this is what he is referring to,

        just as your coffee cools to the atmosphere, so does the ocean, the only place that heat can escape earth is at the top of the atmosphere. next el nino a lot of that heat will be added to the warming. this is a certainty

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Nick, my preferred graphic shows a similar pause in warming to the atmospheric pause. You can argue that the pause is not significant, but you can’t argue that it is not comparable to the atmospheric pause. So Mike’s suggestion that ocean warming is continuing, despite the pause in atmospheric warming, is falsified.

        Note the flat period from around 2003 onwards.

        John, you can argue that the heat is being hidden outside the range of measurement (god of the Gaps? hmmm🙂 ), but this does not answer my charge that the SKS graph is simply wrong, at least in the 0 – 700m range. Sloppy science is sloppy science.

      • Nick says:

        The period from 2003 is not ‘flat’. Ocean/atmosphere is a big place. It shows considerable short term variation,and looking at one year and saying that the process that leads to that years information has paused or stopped because the line has barely moved is as unphysical an explanation as you could possibly manufacture. Really,is that so hard to digest? If you have a fever and you notice that your temperature has not changed for five minutes,can you say that your illness is over? Just from that snippet of time,that one index,ignoring all the other indications? That is the kind of scale one year is to a planetary atmosphere/ocean system. It is meaningless in terms of the process we are concerned with,global CLIMATE perturbation.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        The optimum temperature or the Earth is a whole separate argument Nick – though I’m glad you’re accepting the flat period, only a little after Pachauri admitted it.

      • Nick says:

        Me: “the period from 2003 is not ‘flat'”

        Eric:”..I’m glad you’re accepting the flat period”

        Hmmm.

        Look Eric,I’d love it to be ‘flat’ or ‘declining’…but it ain’t! It’s not me,it’s the data!

    • Stuart Mathieson says:

      It is not too difficult by focussing on particular measurements to identify variations that depart from longer term trends. Deniers like Eric do it all the time. Even if an inexplicable piece of data is identified simply revisiting the simple laboratory experiments designed for high schools that demonstrates the greenhouse effect using baking soda, vinegar, heat lamps, thermometers and fish tanks remind us of the basic scientific realities involved. What hasn’t been absolutely accounted for are the vast feedback loops involving deep ocean currents and variable weather events.
      Eric and his mates should look at the photographic record of glaciers like the Tasman in the South Island of New Zealand. A whole range of evidence from many different scientific disciplines soon iron out isolated discrepancies. But of course most of the deniers have an ideological, political or commercial agenda and they simply recycle isolated discrepancies. It is a waste of time dashing about refuting this stuff. We should simply focus on the the basic physics and the biological implications over the long term and remind the public at every opportunity. The deniers are either Flat Earthers or charlatans and it is a waste of time taking them seriously.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Noone is disputing CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What is in dispute is how much impact it has on climate, and whether this is in any way alarming.

        The IPCC estimates of 3c / doubling of CO2 are based on the unproven assumption that increased CO2 will cause greater evaporation, filling the atmosphere with more water vapour. Water vapour is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

        “Deniers” like Richard Lindzen content that the CO2 signal, far from being the control level of global climate, is utterly swamped by more powerful forcings such as water vapour. Even if there is a slight increase in evaporation, it will simply lead to more clouds forming, reflecting more sunlight back into space.

        Alarmists need to maintain a rather desperate series of assumptions to keep their theory alive. Any failed assumption which reduces climate sensitivity below around 2c / doubling would remove the need for alarm, because below 2c / doubling, no amount of CO2 we are ever likely to produce will have a significant impact on global climate.

      • john byatt says:

        Mostly creationists like the climate sceptics party

      • Nick says:

        Among scientists there is very little dispute about the impact of CO2 on climate,not that scientists disagreeing on details is anything but to be expected. Richard Lindzen’s views have been debunked by observations,but he is yet to accept that. That’s his problem,and is of little concern generally. We know with absolute confidence why CO2 is rising,and with absolute confidence that to change that we need to rejig our energy systems. The scale of that task is huge. Alarmingly so.

        ‘whether this is in any way alarming’… you are attached to words like ‘alarm’ to the point where it dulls your rationality. You should be asking about implications,not considering whether you have a visceral reaction to them. I don’t think that scientists are alarmed by the implications anymore,they’re being observed and have been expected in general. Except that the Arctic Sea Ice volume has collapsed faster than best predictions. Scientists expected to be surprised by some regional developments as they ‘arrogantly’ told us their ability at that scale was mixed.

        We are seeing SLR. It has obvious implications for planning,and the sustainability of coastal settlements and agriculture on deltas and coastal plains in the longer terms. We are seeing record duration hot periods. We are seeing amped up winter storms in the NH,a result of relatively warm seas,disrupted Polar Vortex and higher atmospheric moisture potential coinciding. These are costly. As you are keen to keep the economy in good shape,Eric,you’d be concerned about that.

        It is alarming that rejectionists still think the problem’s identity is questionable,in the context of prediction/observation, human expectation and projected population growth. It is alarming that rejectionists think we can carry on increasing per capita consumption to satisfy a ‘preferred’ behavioral path in the context of abundant ecological knowledge. It is alarming that a lot of our most useful knowledge can be marginalised or rejected through the actions of powerful sub-groups,but history of course shows this is nothing unprecedented.

        Eric,I’m alarmed by your stance,not by climate change.

      • Nick says:

        Eric,I don’t know why you think a equilibrium CS to doubled CO2 of less than 2C will be little problem [“…remove the need for alarm…”] The changes we are seeing are occurring well before doubling [280 to 560ppm] The attachment to FFs will see way more than doubling,and the slower responses in the system come home to roost over centuries. The system also shows a tendency for non-linear responses .

        Take a regional view of implications: Clarence Valley agriculture,sugar cane,corn and soy beans,plus dairying and cattle raising,all happen on floodplains and delta islands. A large percentage of this is below 3m a.s.l. In a few hundred years it will be under,and much rendered useless before that by increasing salinity and flood reach. The intensive agricultural component of that valley’s production cannot simply migrate up hill,because the hills bordering the flood plain are too steep or have soils that are too poor. Productivity per km2 will decline even with adaption. This scenario will be repeated in many,many locations. You know it will take a while for new delta sediments to be deposited at new SL highstands. It makes sense to act now to mitigate such developments because that is adaptive behavior,and I know that many rejectionists have faith in adaption😉

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Nick, below 2c / doubling, you have to dump a really impressive amount of CO2 into the climate to produce a substantial change. Even at our current rate of around 20ppm increase / decade, to increase to 560ppm (2x 280ppm pre-industrial levels) will take 80 years.

        You could argue that CO2 will increase exponentially due to economic growth, but will it really? There’s a limit to how much smog even Chinese cities will tolerate, let along Western cities, so a strong push for less polluting fuels will come simply on the grounds of amenity, let alone environmental considerations. New breakthroughs, such as clean coal (Coal combusted chemically with iron oxide, no release of CO2) mean even traditionally “dirty” will be a lot less polluting, and produce a lot less CO2 in the near future.

        And a whole shopping cart full of new nuclear technologies are on the near horizon, from subcritical Thorium reactors (miniature reactors in which the reaction is sustained by an external particle accelerator, rather than a critical mass) which could one day be small enough to power cars, to new breakthroughs in nuclear fusion.

        The odds that we shall be using the same mix of energy technology, or that it shall emit anything like the same level of CO2, in 60 years time, seem rather remote.

        So the question becomes, do we have to do anything about emissions for the forseeable future? If climate sensitivity is 2c / doubling or less, the answer most likely is no.

      • john byatt says:

        Atmospheric CO2 is rising at the fastest rate for the last 55 million years,
        hope it is not a greenhouse gas

      • john byatt says:

        WE can easily reach 1000ppm on the path we are taking, you need to do a bit more research on coal iron oxide combustion and let us know when you see the problem

      • Nick says:

        Eric,you underestimate or discount committed change from human FF burning to date.

        The thing is Eric we really need to be moving off FFs now to those technologies you mention and the renewable suite. However,energy companies want to use their coal tenements and will have to be dragged kicking and screaming away from them,hence the endless co-ordinated whining that renewables are unaffordable,carbon pricing will kill us,we’re going back to the dark ages,etc from Donors Trust-funded blatherers Liberal and Labor mates and those they have managed to frighten. Infrastructure planning is in the hands of those incumbents who benefit from BAU right now,and greater society can just bloody wait until these unelected blocs have enriched themselves,their old technology pays out and repaid their investors. We now see what happens when global environment change meets an inequitable,inflexible,archaic economic conception head-on. The economics of today demands big returns now plus interest so we have to rob the future to pay off the past: we are walking backwards into a slough of problems: overfishing,nutrification,destruction of biodiversity,climate change,destruction/depletion of aquifers,aerosol pollution,residual pesticides and metals.

        The reason why we have to move now is the slow responding system elements,oceans and ice sheets.Even a hypothetical sensitivity of 1.9C will deliver the local scenario I sketched above,in fact we are likely going there already with the lags yet to work out from emissions to date. Why push on to 4-6m SLR certainties [in 300 years or so] with the more likely sensitivity at closer to 3C? Limiting SLR to 2m is definitely worth doing even if an intergenerational benefit paradigm is hard to fathom for some. Avoiding 2m is worth having a crack at,but the big boys have got the pollies in their pockets. I promise you any dividends from a warmer climate will be outweighed by weather disruptions,depressed yields and decommissioned [drowned] food production.

        In sixty years time there will be a different energy mix under ANY path forward. If the Koch/Peabody/Reinharts [growth at all costs] get their way we will have exhausted most available coal and be through most of the gas and/or have hit extractive bottlenecks that will benefit only their pockets then will be forced to change horses in a less manageable way. If they can be reigned in then we can
        move more cleverly and have more adaptive time.

        What we have is a crisis of governance brought about by the unfettered power of transnational capital and the choices and directives it imposes on sovereign nations. The social need to keep people gainfully occupied has put nations at the mercy of capital that is free to flee after the deregulations of the last decades. With accumulating environmental stress this is the worst time for power to lie in the hands of corporations who have simple charters limited social responsibility, a desire to minimise scrutiny and regulation,no fixed address,few owners,and no social infrastructure demands on them beyond salaries and benefits. This crisis of governance makes it very difficult to treat the world,which we rely on in its entirety, like the world. Instead we try to pretend that it is all separate and separable on
        demand. This is impossible: it is not the beginning of the Age of Exploration anymore. Rant over for the time being.

      • Mr Fluffy says:

        Hello Stuie!

        I will deny that CO2 is a greenhousie gasie!

        Ooh ahh by my Scottish bibby I swear it is not! Augie Auer Style!

        There is no MMGW, its a scam pushed by people to make money, and paraded about by morons to which it is their Religion!

        Question Not! For I am the Lord of Global Warming!

    • Stuart Mathieson says:

      Fat head! You might as well claim Everest is not all uphill because the slope varies.

    • I love how the editor of SciAm lumps Watts in with 4chan. The idiots who cite Watts should just be banned. http://news.yahoo.com/commenting-threads-good-bad-not-141700271.html

  2. john byatt says:

    idiot

    “John, you can argue that the heat is being hidden outside the range of measurement (god of the Gaps? hmmm ), but this does not answer my charge that the SKS graph is simply wrong, at least in the 0 – 700m range. Sloppy science is sloppy science”

    it is not outside the range of measurement ARGO measures down to 2000M

    you are thick .

    • Eric Worrall says:

      John, I have demonstrated the SKS graph is wrong. If the 700m section of the SKS graph is wrong, why should I give any credence to the rest of it?

      • john byatt says:

        which part is wrong eric?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        The 0-700m component of the SKS graph does not agree with the NOAA graph I presented.

      • Rob Painting says:

        You’ve obviously not read our paper Eric. The methodology used by Levitus, on which our paper is based, is different to that of Lyman, on which the NOAA PMEL figure is based. This is down to how one treats missing, or problematic data. Lyman’s method shows more variability because of the way in which the problematic data is handled. So any change (up or down) will tend to be greater using Lyman’s method. The oceanographic community has yet to determine which method is the preferred way of dealing with this.

      • Debunker says:

        Eric has a history of not reading stuff Rob. He doesn’t even read the links he posts himself, (usually from WUWT). See his ridiculous assertion that minimum Arctic ice extent 2012 is “similar” in extent to the 1930’s. The very ice maps he points to prove him wrong. So, sadly, I doubt if he will read your clarifying comment because it doesn’t fit with his belief system.

        A typical denier, when proved wrong, he refuses to acknowledge it but moves on to the next denialist meme of the day….

  3. john byatt says:

    Here is your own graph eric

    current ocean temp is the highest ever confirming the SKS graph, place a ruler on the end of the noaa data across the graph, what temp do you believe it is showing, below what year?

    • john byatt says:

      HAhahah Watts draws his line from an actual temp to the bottom of the error bar at the end

      come in suckers (eric)

      • john byatt says:

        when I stop laughing will be back, now to clean coffee off keyboard

      • Nick says:

        Yep,that’s what Wattsy did! A lot of bills for keyboard cleaning will be sent to WTFWTCTN? [What The F**K Will The Cretin Try Next?]

      • Nick says:

        Oh.I seeee… Watts explained that he was just ‘drawing attention’ to that part of the graph with his yellow line. As if no one knew what he was discussing! Or what the visual implied… “Sure looks like a pause to me” he opines looking at the still-rising line. Maybe he has an inner-ear imbalance?

        Imagine spending your waking hours engaged in the manipulative tosh that A.Watts generates! A wretched existence.

      • john byatt says:

        Betcha a dollar that eric posts it again later to claim no ocean warming.

        good odds on that

      • Eric Worrall says:

        HAhahah Watts draws his line from an actual temp to the bottom of the error bar at the end

        This means the trend is statistically indistinguishable from zero – no change in temperature.

      • Debunker says:

        Eric:

        “This means the trend is statistically indistinguishable from zero – no change in temperature.”

        No it doesn’t. It means Watts is cheating. (no surprises here). Pretty desperate attempt to save your arse there mate!

        And how about responding to your other ludicrously laughable comment on another thread:

        “Cyclic variation. In the 1930s, arctic ice extent also fell, to a similar extent to present day.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/

        As you may not have noticed, (or more likely, ignored), I showed that your “Similar extent in the 1930s” was nowhere near similar, in fact there was 200% more ice then.

        My comment was:

        “Did you even bother to look at the link you posted? There are no sea ice extent calculations there, just maps, so we have to eyeball it; but just look at the August minimum in Sept 1938 (fig 11 on the link you posted). This was the absolute minimum shown on those maps. Now look at this:

        http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-extent-settles-at-record-seasonal-minimum/

        OK, we are comparing August with September, but there wouldn’t be a hell of a lot more difference. As I said, just eyeballing it shows that 2012 minimum ice extent is about half that of 1938. So your comment about “a similar extent to present day” is about as ludicrous as saying your age is similar to that of an octogenarian!”

        It’s amazing that you are happy to argue about small percentages when it suits you but a 200% difference is just “similar” so of no consequence.

        Who is fooling whom?

      • Debunker says:

        Also Eric,

        The Watts graph with it’s “highlight” masquerading as trend line, (why is it that I automatically assumed it was a trend line?. Watt’s lame reply that it was a “highlight” is an attempt to back peddle after he was caught telling a porkie), is a classic cherry pick. Pick any other year than 2003 and it shows a healthy upward trend.

        You denialistas would have been screaming howls of outrage if any scientist had been caught trying a transparent fraud like that.

  4. john byatt says:

    Eric “Deniers” like Richard Lindzen content that the CO2 signal, far from being the control level of global climate, is utterly swamped by more powerful forcings such as water vapour. Even if there is a slight increase in evaporation, it will simply lead to more clouds forming, reflecting more sunlight back into space”

    Lindzen has stated that he does not claim that water vapour will stop the warming

    the increase in the hydro, trans/evap cycle is 2% for 1DegC, and is already accounted for in TOA energy balance, the cycle simply moves energy around vertical and horizontal.

    it only changes the surface energy budget for any area not for the whole earth

    lindzens only paper on the subject was the iris hypothesis, now debunked by empirical evidenence CERES

    • Stuart Mathieson says:

      Increased cloud cover reduces night time cooling. Jim Salinger predicted the night time temperatures will actually flag global warming faster because the increased heat during the day will persist at night because of increased cloud cover, a phenomenon clearly noticeable in the Southern South Island of New Zealand where frosts were recently a significant winter feature.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I don’t see why you think that article proves your point John – its been cold and windy, and dry, so no frosts.

      • Mr Fluffy says:

        West Coast Glaciers are Bigger and Longer, East Coast are Shorter and Drier.

        Why is that?

        We are in an interglacial period … and changes to rain patterns change accumulation in the snow pack.
        Of course, no one would accuse Stu of Cherry Picking data? Would they?

        Timber above the bush line in NZ? Wheat grown by the Vikings in Greenland? Tundra of grass in the permafrost in Siberia? Snap frozen Mammoth Families with grass still in their mouths?

        Chickens growing upon the shore,
        Americans under Martial Law,
        CO2 won’t cut it any more!

        No one here can provide a scientific mechanism for MMGW – sooooo no mechanism – no warming!

        Why has solar output dropped 6.2 Watts per square meter in the last 5 years?

        CO2 did it!
        Oh of course – how could I have missed that one!

  5. Stuart Mathieson says:

    Thanks for that John. Good pithy explanation. These days (Feb) we frequently get midnight temperatures of 17deg Cel., a situation unheard of even 5 years ago in Dunedin.

    • Mr Fluffy says:

      I object – that’s clearly BS as the climate records in wee bonny Dunedin town indicate! Dunedin town is a little shit hole, and it be warmer on the hills than in the bottom of the vallies ….

      Of course, you can present you own logged data to us all to prove all this – right?

  6. Skeptikal says:

    Global warming has clocked off… but some people can’t bring themselves to admitting it. Living in denial isn’t going to change the fact that the world has stopped warming. Pointing to a silly inaccurate graph, created by a wombat and published on an activist site, as some kind of proof that you’ve found the missing heat only serves to highlight the fact that you can’t accept a reality which the rest of the world, including the head of the IPCC, now accepts. Think about it… if that graph had any value in proving that the world was still warming, wouldn’t the head of the IPCC use that graph instead of admitting to a lack of warming? Given that the sole purpose of the IPCC is to find warming, ignoring such “strong evidence” would be crazy.

    I can’t stop laughing… Who are the deniers now?

    • john byatt says:

      You still are

      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/05/17/the-australians-war-on-science-63/

      plus you are rather gullible to believe whatever you read in The Australian

    • Nick says:

      I don’t deny you’re an idiot,Skeptikal. Did you remember to take some ID when you wandered out of the village?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      WTD is the fundie Taliban wing of alarmism – they’ll still be fighting the war long after Pachauri throws in the towel.

      • Nick says:

        Whatever. Carry on like that and you won’t get any more advice on your veggies!

      • john byatt says:

        I told him last year that it was the wrong time for zuccs, learn by experience is best.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        All good fun Nick🙂

        John, I listened, but it was a little too late – already planted🙂. I’ll plant them a littler earlier this year!

      • john byatt says:

        end Aprill after wet months six weeks to fruit, six weeks of picking, twice a day, very small about 150mm best

      • Dr No says:

        Here is another laugh.
        Quadrant is another home/nest for deniers. There you will find a contribution from Roger Underwood, “a retired forester with a special interest in bushfire management in Western Australia”.
        The title is “A good word for drought” and in it he states:
        “There are other positive outcomes of the Western Australian drought that I could mention, for example the investment in sea water desalination. This is technology which can only prove to be of value in the future, either on the coast or in the wheatbelt if we enter another period of wet years.”

    • Dr No says:

      $10 says that this year will see a new global warm record.
      What odds will you give me?

      (still laughing??)

      • john byatt says:

        With UK Met’s best midrange estimate above the 1998 El Nino year, then your odds should be even but as Skeptical believes that it is cooling he/her/it should give you at least 100 to 1

      • Mr Fluffy says:

        I’d be more concenred with increasing Radon levels in Austalia old boy!
        Radon will kill more ockers than CO2 ever will!
        Along with lesbianism!

  7. john byatt says:

    Keep this up fellas and gals another twelve months and we will enslave them all with our beautiful plan for one world government with agent herr Monckton , double agent as our leader, his brilliant plan to align himself with nutters will not have them expecting of his mission, to distract from the hoax science that we produce in our dens each day

    I made this up this morning as coming from Potsdam and silly irriots printed it

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225153128.htm

    • Eric Worrall says:

      At least Monckton hasn’t taken $100 million from big oil, the way climate hero Al Gore just did😉

      Face it – you don’t like him because he’s effective. Without Monckton’s efforts, climate alarmism in America would have sailed through with bipartisan support.

  8. john byatt says:

    No pause here

  9. Debunker says:

    Yes John, but I doubt it will convince Eric. He is so bad at reading charts that he thinks 200% more ice in the 1930’s is “similar” to the minimum Arctic ice extent we had last year. Don’t want to share a meal with him, he would have a “similar” portion to mine, and there would be hardly any left for me.

    No need to ask who ate all the pork pies: it would be the same bloke who is telling ’em!

  10. Mr Fluffy says:

    Was that Man-Bear Pig I saw?

    I did I did I did!!!

    Oink Oink Oink!

    • john byatt says:

      Bit of a dill thinking that the end of the southern hemisphere summer was meant
      his link
      “This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

      that blog is thicker than the ice pack

  11. Mr Fluffy says:

    What happened to the post about he radiation leaks in Canberra?

    No one could accuse this blog of deleting need to know information – right?
    So if you deleted that – you can delete anything to back up your cause – right?

  12. Hmm it appears like your website ate my first comment (it was extremely long) so I
    guess I’ll just sum it up what I had written and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog.
    I as well am an aspiring blog writer but I’m still new to the whole thing. Do you have any helpful hints for newbie blog writers? I’d certainly appreciate it.

  13. Terrific post but I was wondering if you could write a litte more on this topic?

    I’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Cheers!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: